Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 51 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 3
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 5:49am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"The last thing I want STD.. (yeah, it's STD because it sounds awful and it lingers on and on in production hell haha).. the last thing I want my awesome Trek to do is friggin' flat out DIE from it."

Trek won't "die". Nothing can take the 700+ "classic" episodes (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT) from us.

Recently I began a rewatch of TOS with my wife, and you know something? Even after 50 years, it remains a classic. And CBS can't take the already existing legacy from us.

"Holy shit, guys. Do they realize how many people would jump at the chance to HANDLE THIS RIGHT?"

Yeah. Unfortunately, this cannot be done legally without CBS' approval (which they'll never give).

Maybe it's time to start a new sci fi universe. Create an alternative that fills the niche that the official "Trek" no longer fills. The brand "Star Trek" has been diluted in the past decade or so, anyway.

Oh, and it will be hilarious if Paramount or CBS try to sue somebody for doing this. I'd love to see them trying to convince a jury that a thoughtful quality show is "too similar" to the crap they're producing...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 1:35am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

They've already shelled out tons of $$$ into pre-production of this series, so I very much doubt they'll cancel it.

But you're right about one thing: It is obvious that CBS has no idea what they are doing. I also have the sinking feeling that the only reason they chose to do "Discovery" is the Axanar fiasco. You think it's a coincidence, that both shows are set at precisely the same time period? Nobody in their right minds would set a 2010's TV show in Star Trek's 2250's (Say what you will about "Enterprise", a 100+ year prequel makes much more sense than forcing yourself to choose between '60s asthetics and violating continuity in every episode).

So it isn't like CBS launched this project because they actually have a story to tell. It was a kneejerk reaction which they are now stuck with, and the end product will probably look that way too.

TL;DR: Series or no series, CBS is - indeed - screwing up the franchise and on the 50-year anniversary no less.






Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Dec 5, 2016, 8:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"Then they better hop to it with the casting unless they're going the 'Remember Me' route where only 3 people pilot a starship around the Alpha Quadrant :D"

2 people, not 3. Michelle Yeoh isn't playing a crewmember of the Discovery.

But that's okay. As Picard said, "we've never needed a crew before" :D
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:53pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Robert

"I agree with you. The ploy is to make you think that you need them for your next Trek fix more than they need your money. But it might be closer to true than it was in the past. 5 years ago failing in the domestic market was instant death. It's less true now than it used to be. "

That may well be.

However, American or not, they still need people to watch the show. The words "foreign market" are not a magic phrase that allows the producers to ignore the basic rules of the television industry. And no sane business-person is going to shell out tens of millions of dollars on a series with an uncertain future.

So saying things like "we don't need the domestic market" at this early point in time is incredibly cocky. Especially when their actions don't match their words: This entire "All Access" fiasco is a classic example of what happens when people are blinded by greed. The very fact that CBS chose this route, proves that they care so much about domestic profits, it caused them to lose their heads.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 8:46pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ Yanks

"I think some missed Moonves' (sp) statement earlier regarding this show. The foreign market pays for the show. Anything else they get from us Americans is frosting on the cake"

We didn't "miss" it. We recognized it as a marketing ploy which has little bearing on reality and ignored it.

How do I know that? Because:

1. It doesn't make any business sense. There's simply no way that the foreign markets would shell this kind of money on a series which hasn't even been produced yet. Especially a series with such an uncertain future that even the die-hard fans of the franchise are skeptical about.

2. Saying "We really don't need your money" is the oldest marketing ploy in the book. It's a way to convince you, as a customer, that your money doesn't matter. Makes it easier for you to open your wallet and pay up, because - after all - the money isn't important... It's one of the first tricks that all salesmen learn.

Besides, if they don't need our money, why don't they air the show for free? It's funny how it is always the end costumer who needs to "lighten up, it's only 30 bucks"... Can you imagine Mr. Moonves "lightening up" in this respect? In case you've forgotten, this is the guy who declared war on the entire fan film community just to show his muscles. You can be sure that he won't lighten up over a single penny, so why should we?

"$30 bucks folks. Suck it up. It's less than a frakin tank of gas."

How it compares to "a tank of gas" is irelevant.

For $30 bucks I could buy 2 seasons of TNG on DVD. That's 52 episodes which I then OWN and can PLAY WHENEVER I LIKE.

And while I'm not very well versed in the prices of other streaming services, I'm pretty sure (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that CBS All-Access is far more expensive than Netflix (for example).

So no, a price of $30 isn't reasonable at all. It seems that the guys at CBS think that they can charge any price because we Trekkies are like drug addicts who will pay anything for a fix.

And it is our job, as fans, to stand our ground and make clear that this isn't the case. Yes, we love Star Trek. But no, this doesn't mean we're going to pay 30 bucks to watch something that the rest of the world gets for 1/5 of that price. Nor does it mean that we will blindly support a lousy product (*cough* JJ-Trek *cough*) just because it has the "Star Trek" label on it.

"It seems to me that he (CBS) has found a way to give us pretty much unlimited trek without having to ever worry about gaining 8-10 million viewers a week on a entertainment medium that will probably be going away soon. "

You can't sustain a show without viewership. At least not if you want to make any money from it.

This fact doesn't change just because the medium is different. It may change the details of what kind of viewership is needed for the show to survive, but the basic principles remain the same: No viewers, no show.

So if we accept the unlikely claim that the foreign market "already payed" for the first season, the simple fact is that nobody is going to buy additional seasons of a show that performed poorly.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 4:03pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"I don't know how far along the show is so I don't know what viable alternatives CBS has - if any. What I do know is that the poisoning of the Trek fanbase began when their legitimate right to the IP overstepped into the fanbase that truly love the franchise. There's guidelines for fanfiction now. Fanfic - the vast majority of which never sought monetary gain and hurt no one. If anything it was the lifeblood and spirit that keeps Trek's vision alive. "

Yeah, but even that isn't the part which antagonizes me the most.

The worst thing is how CBS lied through their teeth and claimed they support fan films while simultanously bringing down the axe. The beginning of their "fan film guidelines" document was full with lofty words to this effect. It was so hypocritical and so transparent that it's sickening.

Do they think we are stupid or what?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 3:37pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Brandon:

"www.parentherald.com/articles/86005/20161117/star-trek-discovery-air-date-n ews-expect-nudity-swearing-streaming.htm

And now, apparently, we can expect nudity and swearing in our Star Trek.

And you thought DS9/VOY/ENT were trying to be edgy.

Something tells me this is why Bryan Fuller left as showrunner."

To be fair, Fuller himself said - quite a while ago - that swearing will be a thing on "Discovery". He also said that they'll use swear words sparsely (which can actually be a good thing) and not just for vulgarity's sake.

He also said that Discovery will be "darker" (which is weird, given the optimistic name of the series).

OSo it could be that the site you've given was assuming things based on these facts (which are nothing new).

" Is Les Moonves just TRYING to tank Trek? "

That thought *had* crossed my mind... but what reason could CBS possibly have for doing this?

I think it is far more likely that the guys high up are your typical short-sighted managers who don't understand what makes Star Trek special, nor do they "get" the mentality of the fans of the franchise.

And this problem isn't exactly new, either, as the 7-of-9 catsuit tells us...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 9:10am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Oh, and they (CBS) also sued the guy who made the Tricoder App, even though their contract with Roddenberry explicilty said that if a person ever creates a functional tricorder he'll have the right to call it by that name.

Apperantly these guys are not only ruthless and greedy, but also immensely dense. We have a functional futuristic device which millions of fans are happily willing to associate with CBS' show. What better promotion could there be for the Star Trek franchise?

But no. We're not allowed to call it a "Tricorder". We, the fans, have to go against are natural instincts and call it something else. It's absurd.

Well... I just can't wait until NASA invents the "FTL bubble drive" and scientists at MIT develop the first "matter teleport device". Of-course we all know what the real names of these things is, but don't tell anyone. It's illegal.

Sheesh...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 8:46am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Well, the guys of Axanar share the blame in what happened, in my opinion.

This Peters dude pretty much waved a huge red flag at CBS and taunted them "you think your tough? huh? huh? I'm going to rip off your IP and make tons of money out of it. Let's see if your tough enough to do something about it"

So CBS bit the bait, went breserk and declared war on the entire fan fiction community. And while they didn't really have to do that, it was Peters who insisted on poking a finger in the eye of that sleeping dragon.

There's plenty of blame to go around in that story.

Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 9, 2016, 9:02pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

The "whatever reason" is those stupid "fan fiction guidelines" that CBS published a few months ago, which rendered the original concept of "Star Trek: Renegades" illegal. The Renegades team had no choice but to delete all the Star Trek references from their product, or be sued.

So now we have series about the "Confederation" and "The Dirty Dozen" because Star Trek fans are no longer allowed to use words like "The Federation" or "The Maquis" in their fan films.

Thank you very much, CBS. If you think we're going to subscribe to your "all-access" thing after that dick move, think again.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 6:21pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ methane

"t's strange that you're attacking the CBS service and then saying this. I think most people have concluded that the old TV model is fading away. You can say that it will "die", but you could also say that it's simply evolving. CBS streaming is anticipating that change"

Evolution and change can be a good thing.

However, when the "evolution" is towards models that give people less and less for more and more, then we have a problem. And if this "problem" becomes severe enough, the costumers will stop paying.


"Youtube recently added a paid subscription service"

So? There's nothing new in the situation of having pay-for TV alongside free TV, and there's nothing wrong with it either. It has been that way since the 1940's at the very least.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 5:04pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ Chrome

"Not to disrespect Fuller, because he seems to have a big following here, but is it really so bad someone else is writing the shows now?"

All in all, no.

But when "Fuller & Kurtzman" becomes "Kurtzman", we have reason to be worried...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 4:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@methane
"Those of you who think this will be some kind of financial disaster are off base. CBS already announced to shareholders that money from international sales of the show have exceeded the costs to make the show."

The fact that they are making money in other ways, does not change the fact that putting the show on their streaming service is a stupid decision.


"For all of you unhappy that this show isn't bundled into some other service (like Netflix), you're going to have to get used to it. People have been complaining for years that having different networks bundled in their cable bills was unfair, saying 'a la carte' would be better. We're just seeing the start of what a true unbundled environment will look like. We will have more and more services, with fewer and fewer shows on any one service."

It certainly looks like it. But all it proves is that the entire industry has gone mad.

What you're forgetting in your analysis, is the reaction of the public. They will - as you said yourself - "get used to it". They will get used to the fact that the TV shows are getting worse, more expensive, and more of a headache to find.

And they will also get used to the fact that indie companies are providing more quality content than the networks. There are already channels on youtube which are far better than anything shown on mainstream TV.

The end result? TV as we know it will simply die, due to lack of interest. It will go down the way of the printed newspaper. It will probably take decades for this to pan out, but it *will* happen.

Funny thing is that Star Trek actually predicted this. Remember Data saying that TV ceased to be a form of Entertainment by 2040? This prediction certainly seems realistic now.

Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 6:11am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Wasn't "executive producer" the title of Gene Roddenberry in those days when he had pretty much no influence over the show?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 3:38am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Patrick

"So...that sucks. Have they even casted this yet? Wasn't this supposed to come out January of 2017?"

They've already postponed it to May 2017, a while ago.

It looks like they don't really know what they're doing. I assume Fuller - at least - had some sort of roadmap for the show, but now he's gone too :-(


@ Nolan
"Sure, except Paramount has nothing to do with this series. They own the movie rights and thats it. CBS owns the rights to the series. Hence the maketting based decision to release it on their own streaming platform. "

It's still a pretty stupid decision, though. They're trying to make "Discovery" the flagship show of their streaming service, which doesn't make any kind of business sense.

Trek is a niche product. There aren't many Trekkies who would subscribe to a streaming service just to watch a single show, nor are there many non-Trekkies who would be interested in Discovery. So what kind of "flagship show" is that?

Besides, all the previous Star Trek spinoffs took a 2-3 seasons to find their footing. We all remember Season 1 of TNG and DS9, and we all hoped that it would get much better (which thankfully - it did). Had these shows been restricted to pay channels, they wouldn't even have a chance to get off the ground.

All this was known to CBS at the time they made that decision. But now, given the lukewarm reception of the new series concept (not to mention the cloud of uncertainty sorrounding its production) the whole thing makes even less sense.

The general reaction is "meh! I have a bad feeling about this, but since it is Star Trek I'm willing to give it chance". Don't they realize that putting the show on a pay-TV service pretty much gurantees that the show won't get that chance?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:02pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Peter
"Maybe someone high up with power over the license is a total screw-up and is preventing anything good happening in the vain hopes of short-term windfalls."

Perhaps.

Or maybe Fuller finally realized that doing "American Gods" is far more fulfilling and exciting than trying to revive a dying horse.

Another possibility (not mutually exclusive) is that Fuller had a grand and revolutionary vision for Discovery which he had trouble selling to the big people upstairs. Maybe they told him to change this and change that, until he was left with something that he no longer felt a drive to produce.

Oh well... As Enterprise-Z said, even in the worst of the worst case scenarios, we'll always have the good old classic Trek to fall back on. Not to mention the brand new Trek encyclopedia that just came out last week! Finally, something good on the 50th anniversary for fans to celebrate.


Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Bufo

"Sexism was actually worse in the Berman shows than in TOS (starting with Troi's character and outfits, which did not fit into the 80s, whereas the outfits in TOS were normal to that era), and leading from Troi to 7's outfit to the even worse problems you noted in ENT, we see a trend of steadily worsening sexism across the Berman universe."

Really?

I mean, yes, 7-of-9's outfit is 100% sexist, but you can hardly judge an entire show on this one thing. How many female crew-members are there on the Enterprise-D/DS9/Voyager/The NX-01? Are they treated any differently than the males?

For the most part - no. Which is exactly why the "resident eye-candy girl" thing sticks out like a sore thumb. And as a pathetic attempt to "appeal to a certain demographic", it shows more contempt towards us (the viewers) than it could ever show towards women...

(it's also stupid beyond belief. A hormone-stricken adolescent male is not going to start watching Star Trek just because the producers added a babe in a catsuit. There are plenty of other shows that fill this need better...)

Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:42pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Paul

"Because CBS doesn't have rights to the rebooted universe. They can't set their show there as that's Paramount's playground. If they are worried about confusing audiences with alternate universes (which honestly they shouldn't be, because... who cares except a few hardcore fans), one option is to pick a time before the split occurred -- and that's shortly before Kirk's time"

The split occured in 2233, while Discovery is set in the 2250's.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 5:40pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Paul

"Eh, I think some of you guys give the prequel concept way too much weight. Discovery will live or die on the strength of its writing and overall quality, just like Enterprise lived and ultimately died because of its quality (or lack thereof). "

I'm perfectly fine with a prequel (and I actually liked Enterprise quite a bit).

I'm also fine with an official reboot of the Trek-verse, as long as they make it perfectly clear that it is - indeed - a complete reboot.

What I'm NOT fine with, is doing a sneaky reboot of the TOS era while pertending that it isn't a reboot. And unfortunately, this looks like the way Discovery is going to be.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.

As for doing an actual prequel set 10 years before TOS... It could be a very cool idea, if done by someone who is really serious about doing it correctly. I'd just LOVE to see that era authentically recreated with modern production values. And there are plenty of stories to pick from (*cough* Axanar *cough*).

But by the looks of things, this isn't what we're going to get :-(

@ karatasiospa
"To all those that are against prequels: have you thought that they are, perhaps, legal problems in doing a show after Nemesis? the events of the reboot start at the prime timeline after Nemesis: the destruction of Romulus and spock's attempt to save it etc. So perhaps Paramount would object to a series being set in that period."

The solution to this problem is simple: Set the new series far enough in the future that the events of Nemesis and the beginning of ST2009 won't matter much.

They could have set it in the 26th century, for example. And it would also be a good idea to shake the political map of the galaxy a bit. We don't need another TNG/DS9 clone with Klingons and Romulans and Cardassians.

Or even simpler: Do a complete reboot and start afresh with a blank slate.


Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 6:22am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ Bufo "I too expect the prequel concept to doom this show (and can't for the life of me imagine what these supposedly accomplished show runners are thinking when they choose to box themselves in like this)".

It is pretty clear what they are thinking: They want to do a reboot of the TOS era (and yes, this is exactly as terrible an idea as it sounds).

They've already admitted that things will be "the same, yet different" and JJ-Trek already set the precedent of trampling all over the "old" continuity. I do expect Discovery to have far better STORIES than JJ-Trek, but I don't expect it to have any more respect for Trek history.

As for Enterprise: Taken on its own, it wasn't that great an offender of continuity as many fans claim. Apart of a few glaring mistakes (the Ferengi episode for one) it fits nicely with the rest of the canon (although it *does* wreck havoc in many fanon theories which were popular just before it aired).

What really bugs me aboout "Enterprise" in retrospect, is that it started a worrying trend of rebooting Trek history. Enterprise wasn't that bad all by itself, but it served as the first "foot at the door" so-to-speak, which gave rise to far worse offenders.

It is this trend that gave us JJ-Trek. And from what I've heard about Discovery, it seems obvious that it is going to follow the exact same trend.

By the way, I think that most of the aesthetics and props of TOS have aged quite well. The minimalist design of the original NCC-1701 bridge (for example) still looks cool and futuristic and functional. With a few minor tweaks (mostly to the materials of which the panels are made) it wouldn't feel out-of-place in a modern sci fi TV show.

So if TPTB really wanted to do a prequel set in the TOS era without changing anything, they could have pulled it off. Not that doing such a prequel is necessarily a good idea... But if they *do* choose to go with this idea, at least do it right.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 12:59pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Actually, in the 1960's, the miniskirt was a feminist symbol. It was a rebellion against the (then commonplace) situation where men constantly made up rules about what a "decent woman" must wear.

I know this is difficult to believe given the modern climate of sexual objectification, but that's how things were in the 1960's. Back then, having Uhura (for example) in such an outfit actually symbolized something revolutionary and progressive.

You have to realize that in those days, any women who "showed legs" would be considered deviant and even "asking for trouble". So having actual professional women wearing such outfits WITHOUT IT HAVING ANY SEXUAL ORVERTONES WHAT-SO-EVER was a very bold move at the time (and as Peter G. correctly noted, there was nothing remotely sexual in the way Uhura or the random women engineer was protrayed in TOS).

Of-course, TOS did plenty of "sci fi fantasy skimpy outfits" too, from the Orion women to the random alien love interests of the manly man known as James T. Kirk. But comparing these "adolescent fantasy women" to the professional protrayial of Uhura or Lt. Rhada or Lt. Masters just serves as further confirmation of the point I'm trying to make here.

At any rate, I *do* completely agree that having miniskirt uniforms in a modern show would look ridiculous. It gave an empowering message in the 1960's, but that original context is gone now so it would just look funny. It isn't even an issue of "sexism". It would simply look hilariously campy and lame (which is perfectly fine for an occasional nostalgia episode, but probably not a good idea for an entire series).

Fortunately, if Discovery wants to strictly adhere to canon, they wouldn't use the miniskirts anyway. Since it is set in the 2250's, it should use the unisex uniforms seen in "the Cage" and "the Menagerie".

Apperantly the miniskirt fad was just as shortlived in the 2260's as it was in the 1960's (I guess "the sixties" are fashion-crazy no matter what century you're in. Remember that TNG Season 1 actually had MEN wearing miniskirts in the 2360's).
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 5:12am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@ Chrome

"There's still lots of numbers left to add to the total, such as Latin America (which opens tomorrow) and merchandise sales (blu-rays). They're definitely going to turn at least a small profit at this rate."

Probably.

But it's still a pretty crappy ROI for 185 million dollars.

You know what's the funny thing is? They would have probably made much more profit (and taking a far lesser financial risk) by sticking to the old Star Trek principles instead of trying to convert Trek into a BlockBuster format.

And I'm not even counting the long-term consequences of diluting the brand. As Robert said: "I doubt very much the JJ verse will be beloved and watched for generations".

Compare this with films like TWOK and TVH that are still being watched by millions of Trekkies after 30+ years, and you'll begin to see the problem.

@Robert

"Although I am shocked with those numbers that we're going for round 4"

Me too. It is obvious that NuTrek IV is going to be a financial disaster. They've milked the whole "hey look! Trek for cool kids!" thing dry already.

Paramount should be grateful that they haven't yet lost money on this experiement, and should quit while they're ahead.

Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 1:38am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@Genre-Buster

While it is true that I've posted on this thread a lot, it is also true that 90% of what I've written here had to do with the general discussions about Trek that were going here.

Are people now forbiddened from participating in general Trek discussions just because they haven't seen a specific film?

At any rate, it seems that a growing portion of my posts here are a result of me being dragged into silly arguments such as this one. I appreciate that you're being respectful about it (unlike someone we know) but it is still kinda pointless. Things like this have nothing to do with either Trek or the new film, and I'm willing to bet that other people are finding this whole thing more and more annoying by the day.

So let us get back to talking about Star Trek, which is the purpose of these discussion, shall we?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 8:31am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

"Well I've located the troll(s) and the sign clearly states No Feeding."

Ad hominem again. *sigh*

I guess that's the end of THAT discussion, heh?

"As to allowing edits or deletes, it's actually a common courtesy of any commercial site."

So? Just because something is "common" doesn't make it a good idea.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:37am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

As for editing/deleting posts:

I vote no, because people tend to abuse this feature way too much. Especially when the discussions get a bit heated (which they do, on occasion).

I really hate it when people attack you and/or mock you, and then edit their posts pertending nothing ever happened. I despise it even more, when such people think they're doing their victim a favor by deleting those posts.

So definitely no. It's nice and refreshing to have this one place where people are actually held accountable to what they write.

Next ►Page 1 of 3
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.